Tuesday, December 22, 2015

FluorideAlert Newsletter

Rick North: Why I Trust FAN

I’m a volunteer activist from Portland,
OR and I’ve seen first-hand how indispensable FAN is to this great cause of
ending fluoridation.

My background includes a 21-year career
with the American Cancer Society, the last five as the executive vice president
of the Oregon Division. Later, I worked for over seven years as founder and
director of the Campaign For Safe Food program for the Oregon Physicians for
Social Responsibility. I retired almost five years ago.

I’m not a doctor or scientist, but have
worked with them for nearly 40 years and am familiar with medical and scientific
methods. I’m also privileged to have a wide variety of professional colleagues
all over the country who advise me on technical questions beyond my
knowledge.

For most of my life, I thought
fluoridation was fine. Nobody wants cavities, and if the federal government and
organizations like the American Dental Association and American Medical
Association supported it, that was enough for me. And it’s all I’d ever heard
from the media.

About eight years ago, a friend called
and asked me to take a look at the science on fluoridation. I looked carefully
at the arguments of both sides and was amazed – and very concerned – by what I
found. The evidence against fluoridation from every perspective – safety,
effectiveness and ethics – was overwhelming. It was easy to change my
mind.

FAN was my main source of information
opposing fluoridation. Two huge points they made stood out. First, most nations
have rejected it. Currently, out of 196 countries, only 24 have it and only 10,
like the U.S., for more than half their population. FAN not only revealed this
but provided quotes from European health officials citing their health and
ethics concerns.

I also discovered the National Academy of
Sciences 2006 report, Fluoride in Drinking Water, considered the most
comprehensive, authoritative resource ever written on the toxicity of fluoride.
I couldn’t believe what I was reading. It said fluoride was either a definite or
potential health risk for fluorosis, brain functions, bone cancer, diabetes,
kidney disease, thyroid disease and others. When you read statements like
“Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor . . .” and “. . . it is
apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with functions of the
brain. . .” it gets your attention.

What grabbed me the most was the question
of fluoride lowering IQ. FAN’s information was extensive, delving into the
details of every study finding developmental impairment, now numbering 49. But
it went even further, providing links to the few studies that didn’t find
an association, showing both sides of the story for anyone wanting to
investigate further. FAN had done its homework and done it
well.

And then I looked at the other side’s
arguments, led by the American Dental Association’s “Facts on Fluoride.”
Written in 2005, this is STILL on their website. ADA said there was no harmful
causal relationship between fluoridation and intelligence. It cited only two
studies, one from 1986 and one from 1995. They ignored (and continue to ignore)
all the more recent studies – both animal and human – finding links to brain
damage and IQ.

The quality and quantity difference
between the two websites was striking. It was crystal clear that FAN was the
go-to authority on the subject and that the ADA’s information was outdated and
slanted. (To be fair, and in contrast to their website, one of the ADA staff has
been quite helpful in tracking down some recent statistics.)

Since then, I’ve helped inform state
legislators and served on the executive committee of the successful 2013
Portland campaign. I’ve done a lot of writing, public speaking and debating. I’m
a stickler for accuracy. Like anyone, I’ll occasionally make mistakes, but I
never want to make statements that go past the science. The movement’s
credibility and my personal credibility mean everything to me.

Most of what I read on the subject is in
plain English. But some information is technical science or statistics, for
which I don’t have training. This is where advice from scientists like Chris
Neurath and Paul Connett has been essential. Many times they’ve told me that a
scientific study that supports our argument isn’t very well done and I shouldn’t
cite it. Or, I shouldn’t use language that implies the science is stronger than
it is.

Bottom line - they don’t always tell me
what I want to hear. This integrity is FAN’s heart.

The great website, the scientific
studies, Paul and Michael Connett’s inspired speeches, the tracking of
international efforts, the videos and the indispensable support for individual
campaigns all over the country – all are reasons that I donate to FAN and urge
you to do the same.

And as
much as any other reason is this: I can trust them. That’s the foundation for
everything else.